Re: [ga] Current Drafted Motion - Another Sort of Speculation?

[jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Dominik and all,

  I agree with Dominik here.  The cap is too high
by a factor of 10 at least!  Domain name speculation
should be eliminated all together given that such are
a form of public interest property although that has
yet to be defined difinitively under law.  But at a 
minimum, speculation on Domain Names themselves is
a bad practice that should in no way be encouraged.

-----Original Message-----
>From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Mar 25, 2008 6:51 AM
>To: domain-tasting-motion@xxxxxxxxx
>Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [ga] Current Drafted Motion - Another Sort of Speculation?
>
>
>The current motion drafted by the GNSO Council seems to be another
>attempt to keep the speculation aspect of AGP. The whole document is
>vague and raises more questions than answers.
>
>1.
>a. The 10% AGP cap proposed in the document is still too high. After
>calculating the net gains at some, not all, Registrars during the last
>month as available at
>http://www.webhosting.info/registrars/fastest-growing-registrars/global/
>?ob=nc&oo=desc,
>the total number of new net-gained domains during last month is greater
>than 1,220,000. Provided the very most of the new registrations are .COM
>domains and other gTLD domains 1,000,000 domains can be considered a
>reasonable estimation of domains that qualify for the 10% cap of free
>deletes.
>
>That is, 100,000 domains per month constantly available for speculation.
>
>
>b. The exemption from the application of such restriction under
>extraordinary circumstances is unclear and not specified.
>
>What are such extraordinary circumstances like?
>
>Who will be considering and will finally accept the documented showing
>of such circumstances?
>Are they Registries interested in running the domain business?
>
>What is the maximum cap after applying the exemption? 100%? Or even
>more?
>
>
>2.
>What will the oversight activities at ICANN look like?
>
>Where is the guarantee that the oversight activities will actually take
>place and will not be neglected or misused?
>
>Will the GNSO be responsible for the oversight activities?
>The GNSO trapped by financial interests of Registries and Registrars as
>clearly demonstrated in the two recommendations presented to the board?
>The GNSO that does not even bother to seriously consider the mostly
>supported suggestion from the public input, which is elimination of AGP?
>
>And finally, who will be paying another bureaucratic staff and its
>questionable mission?
>Registrants?
>
>
>Dominik Filipp, a GA list member
>

Regards,

Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very
often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability
depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of
Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 214-244-4827